Touchy Celebrity Pundits
This is my last response to screenwriter Roger L. Simon who has banned me twice now for sparring with his whacko minions on his blog. He started by complaining about the war commentary at the media panel on Saturday and walked out. I ribbed him about being thin-skinned which he admitted to. Oh Lord Vader it could have been so different. But authoritarian streaks can ruin the best of us.
"I banned you," Simon wrote.
Aw really? I don't know why one can't ask a question [about blog advertising] without getting insulted by shills. What we have here is a crude pack of hyenas chasing a quasi-celebrity. It's a fandom and I'd watch out for Moses Wine fanfic. That's the next step in hero worship I'm told.
I've done nothing to get banned here or anywhere else. The problem is diversity of thought. There's rarely any allowed in blogworld. On both sides they're trench warfare akin to my old man in the foxhole during the Battle of the Bulge.
I've blogged for three years. Compared to celebrities average folks with qualifications degrees in Journalism, science, history are fairly buried in the culture of fame. That is changing. As far as I'm concerned Roger you've gone over to the dark side. Other than that I suspect you're a nice man, and a talented writer but very Hollywood establishment. It's a drawing card by definition.
The comments of his crowd speak for themselves. It's a stroll through the dark cave of ignorance.
"I banned you," Simon wrote.
Aw really? I don't know why one can't ask a question [about blog advertising] without getting insulted by shills. What we have here is a crude pack of hyenas chasing a quasi-celebrity. It's a fandom and I'd watch out for Moses Wine fanfic. That's the next step in hero worship I'm told.
I've done nothing to get banned here or anywhere else. The problem is diversity of thought. There's rarely any allowed in blogworld. On both sides they're trench warfare akin to my old man in the foxhole during the Battle of the Bulge.
I've blogged for three years. Compared to celebrities average folks with qualifications degrees in Journalism, science, history are fairly buried in the culture of fame. That is changing. As far as I'm concerned Roger you've gone over to the dark side. Other than that I suspect you're a nice man, and a talented writer but very Hollywood establishment. It's a drawing card by definition.
The comments of his crowd speak for themselves. It's a stroll through the dark cave of ignorance.
posted by Mark at 12:19 PM
21 Comments:
Boo hoo.
(Yeah, I know, original. But it's all I could muster.)
Mark:
Whether or not Roger should have banned you is up for debate.I don't think it was for that single comment but for your post's over the last week or so. Your comment about Marc Cooper being the lone conservative and Roger somehow being a "conservative" sounds as ignorant as some of the people you attack. Roger is Democratic hawk. He is pro gay marriage, pro choice, anti monotheism, anti FCC, basically your standard Liberal except on the issue of the war. Your attempt to say someone like Roger is the same as someone like Hugh Hewitt doesn't stand up to the facts. Your Cardinal Ratzinger like attempt to stamp him as a conservative sounds just as authoritarian as you claim Roger is.Sounds a bit like the "you are either with us or against us' mentality that I thought liberals looked down on. And if you have been blogging for 3 years and only get 5 or 6 comments over a two week period I think you may want to reconsider the quality of your blog.
This may be news to this crowd but Simon walks like a duck and quacks like one so overall he's a Mallard. He may be a Democrat still, but so is Richard Perle. He's a conservative on everything but these two hot button social red herrings you cite. You may think that's dumb to point out but in my world accuracy counts. In wing-nut world only dogma matters.
The real authoritarian here spoke and his name is Simon.
Mark:
Just for the sake of accuracy I mentioned four issues, not just 2 issues as you claim. There are many more. 1- Gay marriage. 2- Pro Choice. 3-Anti-FCC( he has posted many times railing against the Michael Powell restrictive rullings on Speech. 4- Anti- monotheism. I do not share his feelings but he has stated many times his aversion to the idea of religions who claim only one path to God and maybe you could claim this is not a liberal cause but is most certainly not considered by most people the sign of a conservative. I also notice that you don't seem to shy about banning posts.
Mark:
I mentioned four issues, not two. Just for the accuracy you claim to love.
Mark:
I found your comment on dogma interesting. Simon is very "conservative" on foreign policy and the war. He is liberal, even far left, on most other issues. I don't really care what percentage of foreign policy conservatism makes you unworthy of of belonging to the liberal club, since you seem to be the head Cardinal in defense of the faith in regards to this issue I am sure you have the breakdown. Other then his stance on foreign policy, what issues does Roger need to rethink to lose his apostate staus.
Mark:
A few more of Rogers infamous conservative views. California's recent fetus for medical research bill, for it. Medical marijuana. For it.James Dobson, hates him.He didn't post very often on the Schiavo case but he generally sided with the husband. Clinton Impeachment, against it. Arizona Minute Man project, against it. Since I know you are correct and since you applied the scientific Duck test I guess I will have to change my previous ideas about what a conservative is.
I don't expect to be listened to, but it's worth a try.
I saw the exchange on Oren's blog and took a look at the Simon exchange. From my read it looked like you were trolling--trying to drag what was surely to Simon an important post in an undesired direction.
Maybe I wouldn't have done the same thing, or deleted the post like you did with that EBubba post, but I would have been irritated.
Just my $.02 for what it's worth. If you were actually looking for dialogue perhaps there was a more productive way to do so.
Exbubba's post was illiterate and added nothing to the criticism. You'll notice Simon went father than that because of my opposing views. He wasn't posting on religious questions. He was posting on foreign policy.
And this is the second time he's done so it takes very little. I ribbed him about walking out of the media panel on C-Span tonight. I was there. I'm nottrolling for anything but it is fun to throw a stick into the spokes of the wingerville merry-go-round. That's what he's running there despite what his views are on a few specifically trageted issues. Those are the same views that will derail the Republican machine. Stay tuned.
Mark:
Simon is not a conservative. He is a liberal with conservative views on the war. First you said it was just two "hot button" issues that Simon masked his true consevative views behind. Now you have adjusted this to a few specific targeted issues as if he was a Chicago University Rovian plant fooling the lumpen proletariat into buying the image of his faux liberalism.
Believe it or not there are some liberals who don't agree with you on the war. Are they a minority? You bet. But they made up a large portion of the 3 million vote difference in the last election. I am a registered independent who does not believe that the Republicans have some automatic lock on the upcoming elections. If I had to guess I would think that Sen. Clinton has the best chance in '08 at this point. But the one thing that will sink them is the knee jerk labeling of anyone who agreed with the war as some sort of Karl Rove lapdog. American Liberals with attitudes like Simon and Christopher Hitchens will bite their tongues and vote Republican again if you keep it up.
I can go to the comment sections of DU and LGF and see the moonbats who leave two sentence posts that lean towards swear words and ad homonim attacks. It happens on Simons blog too but there are often serious posts by serious people, who don't all share one common worldview. And for someone who has almost no one comment on his site you don't have much room to be arrogant. My comments and your responses about Simon almost double the number of comments you have had in the last two weeks
Mark:
Simon is not a conservative. He is a liberal with conservative views on the war. First you said it was just two "hot button" issues that Simon masked his true consevative views behind. Now you have adjusted this to a few specific targeted issues as if he was a Chicago University Rovian plant fooling the lumpen proletariat into buying the image of his faux liberalism.
Believe it or not there are some liberals who don't agree with you on the war. Are they a minority? You bet. But they made up a large portion of the 3 million vote difference in the last election. I am a registered independent who does not believe that the Republicans have some automatic lock on the upcoming elections. If I had to guess I would think that Sen. Clinton has the best chance in '08 at this point. But the one thing that will sink them is the knee jerk labeling of anyone who agreed with the war as some sort of Karl Rove lapdog. American Liberals with attitudes like Simon and Christopher Hitchens will bite their tongues and vote Republican again if you keep it up.
I can go to the comment sections of DU and LGF and see the moonbats who leave two sentence posts that lean towards swear words and ad homonim attacks. It happens on Simons blog too but there are often serious posts by serious people, who don't all share one common worldview. And for someone who has almost no one comment on his site you don't have much room to be arrogant. My comments and your responses about Simon almost double the number of comments you have had in the last two weeks
I don't know who you are or care for that matter. His blog reads like the wingerville vigilante cabal. Read the posts. It's bash anything that doesn't advocate taking scalps.
Simon is a liberal who is scared. That's painfully evident in everything he writes.So he adopts a "let's kill them all" stance on foreign affairs; the same one that brought us 9-11 by the way. I supported Afghanistan but Iraq was a shill fest farce. The result isn't: a dangerous hell hole claiming now to be free. Yeah right. If he posted positively on any social issue nobody would show. He's one of ours you've let in to your circle. You're fans. He's a celebrity: do the math.
Mark:
You say you don't know me but you know I am a "fan". I am not the one who is stuck in the position where he has to troll other sites to get people to come to his empty blog and then complains when he can't play in the big leagues.Lets do the math. Arrogance plus lack of attention equals whiney jealous screeds.
Jealous? Of a mob of wingnuts? Au Contraire. Let Simon defend himself. I see where your nose is from the view and enraged fan response here. Take a hike.
Mark:
It's your blog so I will take your advice and leave you and the 5 or 6 people who care enough to respond to your "wisdom" alone. One last point as before I go. You could have asked Kerry your ANWR question and not tired him out. He would have said "Bush is desroying Alaska, we need to end our addiction to ME oil, nice to meet you,next please. Yor name dropping regarding your 30 second meeting with Sen. Kerry and the effort you took to enjoy that special moment sounds more like a celebrity obsessed "fan" that should be above someone of obvious stature.Good Luck with your blog.
Bush wants to destroy Alaska. That's true. Kerry wants the opposite. That's good enough for me. This blog is a microscopically small part of what I do. I write books and now work for the BLM. That's twice Bush has inadvertently hired me. Call it a check and balance. As for the get the politician on the record live charge, like all original reporting it's harder than commenting on message boards.
And to correct the out of context usage of my language. I wore down the crowd, not Kerry. You guys really should attempt to argue with reason and not misinformation, but then that's all you have isn't it?
Thanks for the response.
As for Electronic Bubba, what you say makes sense--that's EBubba's schtick, which is kind of take-it-or-leave-it (his blog and comments I've seen in other places look exactly the same, by the way).
If your intent was to 'stir the pot', in exchange for the animosity, then I guess it was successful.
I guess we all look at things differently, is all.
Thanks for reasoned comment chap. I'm pro military, but I'm not for stupid use of that very human resource and that's what's happened now.
Definitely a great design blog. This can be an individual and compared with your post. Keep it up more posting like this. requirements for medical marijuana card.
Post a Comment
<< Home